Convenience as a Measure of Ignorance We've all heard versions of or, indeed, experienced stories about student dependencies on calculators, e.g., the student who couldn't multiply 9 times 8 because his calculator malfunctioned. There are certainly versions of this story involving automatic transmissions, autodialers, digital watches, and fountain pens, all with a twist wherein the human is held hostage by a device. These kinds of stories suggest that an increased access to "conveniences" seem to diminish peoples' ability to function; in a sense peopfe seem to know less-or know how to do less-as the use of conveniences inrrensrs. 'l'he dictionary asiociares ideas like personal comfort, ense, lat~or-saving,timeliness, and brncfit u,ith the u,ord convenience; all are desirable for the human condition. However, we should recognize that which produces convenience is a tool. Tools need to he applied with sensitivity and not with the mindlessness that is often observed in, for example, students using hand calculators. Such use often reflects a lack of iystr-m'btic thinking, personal discipline, and indeed, .I helief in one's intollil~ilit\, in mechanical operations suchas entering numbers and fu&ons. The concept of personal fallibility, for example, of the need for checking a calculation, seems to be lost, as is a sense for numhers. After all, the average volume of a COz molecule must he -10.631287 mL because that's the number on the output display. This trend should be particularly disturbing for the citizens who will live in a "high-tech society" and those who would teach or train them. The loss of control by the majoritv of humans brought about hv the attrition of their capacity for action because of the encroachment of conveniences could lead to the rise of a technological priesthood. I t is not inconceivable that the basic knowiedgebf how things work and, more importantly, what to do when they don't, will
-
accumulate in the minds of a relatively few people who are sufficiently interested to dig out the details-the hackersor who become accidentally involved with needing to know. Now this discussion is not designed to argue against conveniences, rather it is to recognize, once again, as in the case of nuclear energy, that convenience should be embraced with care and sensitivity. The problem is particularly difficult for teachers because they are constantly being asked to include "one more thing" in their efforts with students. Thus, the current ease of performing simple mathematical functions, fur fairly con~plexprocessrs, makes it imperative that triu her3 u,orrv more about developing in their t n d r n t s a sense for numbers. Classically many students lacked "number sense", hut the struggle had been to get to the numbers. Not that it's easier to get to the numbers, teachers must address the issues concerned with critical judgment. How do you assure that the appropriate sequence of buttons has heen rorrertlg pushed'? Does the result nn the display mskr sense? Is it possihle to rhrrk the calculation using a different path or argument? The basis for such concerns are difficult to deal with in an environment where multiole-choice suestions are popular (recognize the answer, don't necessariiy understanditj and where the "self-service" syndrome generally produces confusion. In an environment where teachers must deal with a larrer number of students than is optimum, new techniques are-necessary to stress and evaluate issues of judgment. Perhaps no one bothers to teach the ohvious anymore; in a "high tech world" the machines will do everything. But who will do the thinking; who will provide the discipline and judgment? JJL
Volume 64
Number 1
January 1987
1
